Why do you still believe...?

[enolam]

There was a time, pre-1980s, when the Brethren often speculated and spoke on many diverse issues... Since the mid 1980s, the Church has refocused the teachings of the Brethren to Pres Packer's consistent message of "teach the doctrine." ...just because it is found in Gen Conf, does not make it doctrine.

Concerning your claim that the Brethren often speculated in General Conference, I could understand that they spoke on diverse things...which diverse teachings were nevertheless of truth, and i could understand that in the mid 80's, as you claim, they put focus on the fundamentals rather than diverse things... but speculation? I would like to know the source that inspired you to use that word. Now I know they might speculate in other arenas, but not so in General Conference I believe. If one of the brethren taught falsely, then the First Presidency would make a statement of correction in some way or another. This is the pattern Joseph Smith set. You'll notice at the end of the General Conference sessions the President seems to make a comment that the words of the conference were inspired and the like. I have always taken this as the Presidents seal of approval.

Since the mid 1980s, the Church has refocused the teachings of the Brethren to Pres Packer's consistent message of "teach the doctrine." You'll note that no one speaks about political issues anymore, for instance. Why? Because they are teaching the necessary things for our salvation - the doctrine.

I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 1:14–16; D&C 84:49–53.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world. (See Ether 8:18–25.)

(Ezra Taft Benson, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, October General Conference 1988)

Notice the year of that talk? Thats political isnt it? Furthermore, you will notice it is a testimony (revelation from the Holy Ghost).... isnt the very war in heaven political also? I know they do not talk about specific politics, and there is great wisdom in that, but that doesn't mean when they have done, it was false...

[Hemidakota]

Not sure what WND is....... Is CATO suitable for you?

How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People

by Jim Powell

Jim Powell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is author of FDR's Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003).

Added to cato.org on December 29, 2003

This article appeared on cato.org on December 29, 2003.

Democratic presidential candidates as well as some conservative intellectuals, are suggesting that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is a good model for government policy today.

Mounting evidence, however, makes clear that poor people were principal victims of the New Deal. The evidence has been developed by dozens of economists -- including two Nobel Prize winners -- at Brown, Columbia, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, the University of California (Berkeley) and University of Chicago, among other universities.

Jim Powell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is author of FDR's Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003).

More by Jim Powell

New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up.

The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."

Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs.

New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring.

Other New Deal programs destroyed jobs, too. For example, the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) cut back production and forced wages above market levels, making it more expensive for employers to hire people - blacks alone were estimated to have lost some 500,000 jobs because of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) cut back farm production and devastated black tenant farmers who needed work. The National Labor Relations Act (1935) gave unions monopoly bargaining power in workplaces and led to violent strikes and compulsory unionization of mass production industries. Unions secured above-market wages, triggering big layoffs and helping to usher in the depression of 1938.

What about the good supposedly done by New Deal spending programs? These didn't increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. This is a classic case of the seen versus the unseen -- we can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing.

For defenders of the New Deal, perhaps the most embarrassing revelation about New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the South, the poorest region in the United States. The largest share of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the West and East - where incomes were at least 60% higher than in the South. As an incumbent, FDR didn't see any point giving much money to the South where voters were already overwhelmingly on his side.

Americans needed bargains, but FDR hammered consumers -- and millions had little money. His National Industrial Recovery Act forced consumers to pay above-market prices for goods and services, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act forced Americans to pay more for food. Moreover, FDR banned discounting by signing the Anti-Chain Store Act (1936) and the Retail Price Maintenance Act (1937).

Poor people suffered from other high-minded New Deal policies like the Tennessee Valley Authority monopoly. Its dams flooded an estimated 750,000 acres, an area about the size of Rhode Island, and TVA agents dispossessed thousands of people. Poor black sharecroppers, who didn't own property, got no compensation.

FDR might not have intended to harm millions of poor people, but that's what happened. We should evaluate government policies according to their actual consequences, not their good intentions.

It was a total lost of not allowing the economy of that era in not correcting itself. It failed when the government got involved and allow it to fester even longer. Then we have people in the government who think it is better for the government to correct the problems of claimed over paid MBA CEOs mistakes. It will fail again but as President Packer comment, "...and “things are going to change and change drastically.” It will be the government that will drags us down.

[rameumptom]

Concerning your claim that the Brethren often speculated in General Conference, I could understand that they spoke on diverse things...which diverse teachings were nevertheless of truth, and i could understand that in the mid 80's, as you claim, they put focus on the fundamentals rather than diverse things... but speculation? I would like to know the source that inspired you to use that word. Now I know they might speculate in other arenas, but not so in General Conference I believe. If one of the brethren taught falsely, then the First Presidency would make a statement of correction in some way or another. This is the pattern Joseph Smith set. You'll notice at the end of the General Conference sessions the President seems to make a comment that the words of the conference were inspired and the like. I have always taken this as the Presidents seal of approval.

The President does not always state that at the end of Gen Conf. I recall in the late 1970s that either Elder McConkie or Benson promoted the John Birch Society, and afterward Pres Kimball got up and established that we do not, as a Church, endorse any organization. You will not find that talk, btw, on the Church website. Nor was it in the Ensign.

And Brigham Young and others used to speculate in conference all the time. As I've mentioned in other threads (and perhaps this one), Brigham Young once spoke all morning in Conference. In the afternoon, he returned and said, "this morning I told you everything I thought on the topic. Now I'll tell you what the Lord thinks on that topic."

When Brigham and others spoke, they still spoke according to their limited knowledge. Sometimes that limit was a little off. Considering the thousands of talks given in the Tabernacle, it's amazing how on course most of them are. But there still are some that are wrong.

[rameumptom]

BTW, many economists are stating that if Obama is not careful in spending, we'll end up with a double dip recession. Some spending can stimulate, if spent in the right ways on the right things. I've yet to be convinced that $300 million for STD research should be on that list.

The problem is that much of the spending will not quickly stimulate the economy, nor will it effectively stimulate it for the long term, either. It is like GWBush's tax rebate last year, it gave a little bump and then we went back to where we were. Except that it increased the deficit, and is affecting the crash we are now experiencing.

It was an ineffective way to use money to stimulate the economy, and it is now showing us that. If Obama throws money at poorly designed programs (education, medicare, social security, pork), then we will not receive the Return on Investment that we need. More money at a bad program will not produce smarter kids or healthier old people. It will just help us go bankrupt that much faster. Personally, I don't want any president, of any party, being forced into declaring martial law because we have to declare our nation bankrupt.

[Hemidakota]

I was quite surprised to learn of his own pork initiatives for his own state.

[enolam]

I recall in the late 1970s that either Elder McConkie or Benson promoted the John Birch Society, and afterward Pres Kimball got up and established that we do not, as a Church, endorse any organization. You will not find that talk, btw, on the Church website. Nor was it in the Ensign.

Yeah... thats a good example to support my earlier comment... and that is how it is done, and that is the pattern set by the example of Joseph Smith.

To come full circle from where this thread came from... the times in General Conference Ezra Taft Benson spoke of political topics... e.g. conspiracies in the government... were not omitted, nor were they disfavoured by the First Presidency, so they stand as truth. That was the main point I was trying to support from the beginning. Whether they would disallow such a topic now or not is irrelevant, because it still stands as truth.